State Of Washington, Respondent V. Daye'vion D. Royalston, Appellant

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Respondent,
v.
DAYE’VION ROYALSTON,
Appellant.
No. 87746-1-I
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — Daye’Vion Royalston appeals from an order denying his motion
under CrR 7.8 seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. 	His court-appointed attorney has
filed a motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument
on review. 	Pursuant to State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967),
“Th[e] 	request 	[to 	withdraw] 	must . . . (1) be 	accompanied 	by 	a 	brief
referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
(2) A copy of counsel’s brief should be furnished the indigent and (3) time
allowed 	him 	to 	raise 	any points 	that 	he 	chooses; 	(4) the 	court—not
counsel—then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”
Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
This procedure has been followed. 	Royalston’s counsel on appeal filed a brief
together with the motion to withdraw. Royalston was served with a copy of the brief and
informed of his right to file a statement of additional grounds for review (SAGR).
The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel’s brief in support of the

No. 87746-1-I/2
-2-
motion to withdraw. 	The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has
independently 	reviewed 	the 	entire 	record. 	The 	court 	specifically 	considered 	the
potential 	issue 	raised 	by 	counsel, 	i.e., 	whether 	the 	trial 	court 	erred 	in 	denying
Royalston’s motion to withdraw his plea on the basis that counsel rendered ineffective
assistance in failing to inform Royalston of the possible sentence he faced. 	The court
also 	considered 	potential 	issues 	Royalston 	raised 	in 	his 	Statement 	of 	Additional
Grounds for Relief related to evidence about a prior request to withdraw his plea and
alleged misinformation about a section of the plea agreement.
The potential issues are wholly frivolous, and our independent analysis of the
record has revealed no other potentially reversible error. 	Counsel’s motion to withdraw
is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
FOR THE COURT: